Howard University v. Borders
2:20-mc-51282
E.D. Mich.Apr 26, 2021Background
- Howard University sued the Borders defendants over ownership of a Charles White drawing, "Centralia Madonna," which surfaced at Sotheby’s in May 2020.
- Dr. Charles M. Boyd, a Howard University trustee and nonparty resident of Birmingham, Michigan, received two subpoenas from the Borders: one for documents and one for a deposition.
- Defendants sought eleven document categories largely concerning Boyd’s communications about the artwork, Howard, or Sotheby’s; they sought a four-hour remote deposition.
- Boyd objected, estimating 20–30 hours of work to comply, asserting overbreadth, duplicative requests (documents obtainable from Howard or Sotheby’s), and privilege concerns; he offered a one-hour remote deposition limited to a May 28, 2020 Sotheby’s call.
- SDNY denied a preemptive motion to compel because Boyd had not yet failed to appear or produce documents; Boyd then moved to quash under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) in the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The court quashed the document subpoena in full as unduly burdensome to a nonparty and granted a limited deposition: a two-hour remote deposition within 30 days on the May 28 and 29, 2020 calls with Sotheby’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boyd) | Defendant's Argument (Borders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the document subpoena is unduly burdensome/overbroad | Requests are overbroad, duplicative, partly privileged, and impose undue burden on a nonparty | Documents are relevant to ownership/dispute; defendants excluded documents already produced and privileged materials | Quashed in full: many requests obtainable from Howard or Sotheby’s and overbroad for a nonparty |
| Proper scope and length of deposition | Willing to give one-hour remote deposition limited to May 28, 2020 Sotheby’s call; objects to longer deposition | Seeks four hours of remote testimony to explore calls and related communications | Denied motion to quash as to deposition: ordered a two-hour remote deposition within 30 days covering May 28 and 29, 2020 calls |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998) (discussing broad scope of discovery and relevancy standard)
- EEOC v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 26 F.3d 44 (6th Cir. 1994) (directing courts to balance relevance against burden when evaluating subpoenas)